Church Discipline

Church discipline is the traditional term for how the church corrects sinful behavior in the congregation or removes a sinful person from the assembly. The term church discipline has largely fallen into disuse in the West because, for the most part, the practice itself has. Anyone familiar with church history should be surprised at this.

Through the centuries the church has shown vital concern about how to discipline its members. Discipline has been one of the most hotly debated and divisive issues. In the fifth century, even an emperor was excommunicated from the church. The Protestant Reformation overthrew many aspects of Roman Catholic polity but sharpened the historical church’s concern for congregational discipline. Luther and Calvin made church discipline central to their doctrine and practice of church government. The Anabaptists went so far as to place church discipline alongside preaching and the sacraments as one of the three marks of the church.

Why Has It Died Out?

One reason for the decline of church discipline is past abuses of it. Church discipline is abusive when it is used by church authorities as a tool of suppression and manipulation. When this occurs, the church, in time, decides that the price of church discipline is too dear, and it is allowed to die out.

Another reason is that the church is always affected by, even co-opted into, the dominant culture. Western culture is now more permissive than ever and has become increasingly tolerant of what we used to call sin and less tolerant of those who oppose that sin. It is no longer fashionable, and in some cases permissible, to challenge a person’s values or behavior.

A further reason for the scarceness of church discipline today is because the church has traditionally defined the focus of discipline too narrowly. In the past it has been carried out primarily to purge the assembly of sin or doctrinal error. This singular concern for congregational purity has led leaders to allow drastic and even cruel measures against those judged to be impure. This often has inflicted more damage on the church than it has corrected. As a result, churches consciously or unconsciously decided the price of practicing discipline was too high and let it drop from its central place of importance.

How Can It Be Reintroduced?

The church could receive benefits of discipline, and the above-mentioned problems connected with it would be avoided if we followed Jesus’ clear instruction in Matthew 18:15-17:

If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that “every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.” If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector.

Jesus began his instruction by making everyone in the congregation responsible to everyone else for the ministry of discipline. Church discipline is neither the exclusive responsibility nor the prerogative of church leaders. This should keep discipline from becoming a weapon of control wielded by autocratic leaders.

According to Jesus, the first disciplinary approach is to be made in private. This prevents the poison of gossip. No one should talk about another’s alleged sin behind his or her back. The person who is suspected of sin must be the first to hear about it.

Jesus’ teaching on discipline follows his story of the return of the lost sheep (Matthew 18:10-14). Accordingly, the person who has sinned is the lost sheep, and discipline is analogous to rescue. Discipline does not first push the contamination out of the church but rather draws the erring brother or sister back into it. Jesus says in Matthew 18:15, “If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.” Successful church discipline is not the upholding of some abstract notion of congregational purity but the restoration of broken fellowship. It is the welfare of the person that is of primary importance.

Everything said about the motive of the first private approach is true of subsequent more public meetings. Whether one or two others are taken along or whether the matter is taken to the church, the purpose of discipline is to persuade the offender to be reconciled to the assembly by repenting of sinful behavior. If the community fails in reconciling the sinner to itself and the lost sheep insists on remaining lost, the church will then “treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector” (Matthew 18:17). In this, we would follow Jesus in his own treatment of pagans and tax collectors. While he did not have an ongoing close relationship with them, he did keep mixing with and talking to them in hopes that they would repent and believe and follow him.

Our first task, however, is to develop churches in which people really know and care for one another. Without that there is no context in which discipline makes much sense. It is interesting to note that Paul’s approach to discipline (1 Cor. 5:1-5; Galatians 6:1-5) is very similar to Jesus’ approach. Then if our churches follow Jesus’ and Paul’s practice, our discipline will have teeth—it will be binding. But it will be above all an expression of pastoral care in its motive and effect.

» See also: Accountability, Relational

» See also: Authority, Church

» See also: Conflict Resolution

» See also: Discipleship

» See also: Fellowship

» See also: Membership, Church

» See also: Pastoral Care

References and Resources

K. Blue and J. White, Discipline That Heals (Downers Grove, Ill.: InterVarsity Press, 1992).

—Ken Blue